Vee Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody.
I endorse this viewpoint.
Just call it the exception WP:HUMANITARIANGROUNDS
It is the right thing to do morally, as it violates very basic standards of fairness to discuss a person so directly, yet deny them the opportunity to defend themselves *in the same forum*.
It is the right thing to do pragmatically, as otherwise accusations of sockpuppetry fly back and forth.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of dispute resolution, as it allows at least the (admittedly small) chance of developing some mutual understanding from the discussion.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of minimizing harm, as otherwise the situation looks like something out of Kafka ("Anyone can write accusations against you, but *you* aren't even allowed to speak in your defense, since we don't like you and we 0wnz ur bi0").
If nothing else, the obvious ill-will that is generated from not even being able to defend oneself should make the choice clear.
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Vee Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody.
I endorse this viewpoint.
Just call it the exception WP:HUMANITARIANGROUNDS
It is the right thing to do morally, as it violates very basic standards of fairness to discuss a person so directly, yet deny them the opportunity to defend themselves *in the same forum*.
It is the right thing to do pragmatically, as otherwise accusations of sockpuppetry fly back and forth.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of dispute resolution, as it allows at least the (admittedly small) chance of developing some mutual understanding from the discussion.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of minimizing harm, as otherwise the situation looks like something out of Kafka ("Anyone can write accusations against you, but *you* aren't even allowed to speak in your defense, since we don't like you and we 0wnz ur bi0").
If nothing else, the obvious ill-will that is generated from not even being able to defend oneself should make the choice clear.
I too endorse this well-expressed view.
This is not about Brandt or the bloody-minded obsession that some have expressed about Brandt. This place is about building an encyclopedia, and that should take precedence over who happens to have made the edit.
I am often appalled by the lack of understanding for principles of fundamental justice in some people's attitudes. A person whose character is questioned in a public forum needs to have an equivalent right to defend himself in an equally public forum.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Vee Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody.
I endorse this viewpoint.
Just call it the exception WP:HUMANITARIANGROUNDS
It is the right thing to do morally, as it violates very basic standards of fairness to discuss a person so directly, yet deny them the opportunity to defend themselves *in the same forum*.
It is the right thing to do pragmatically, as otherwise accusations of sockpuppetry fly back and forth.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of dispute resolution, as it allows at least the (admittedly small) chance of developing some mutual understanding from the discussion.
It is the right thing to do from the standpoint of minimizing harm, as otherwise the situation looks like something out of Kafka ("Anyone can write accusations against you, but *you* aren't even allowed to speak in your defense, since we don't like you and we 0wnz ur bi0").
If nothing else, the obvious ill-will that is generated from not even being able to defend oneself should make the choice clear.
I too endorse this well-expressed view.
This is not about Brandt or the bloody-minded obsession that some have expressed about Brandt. This place is about building an encyclopedia, and that should take precedence over who happens to have made the edit.
I am often appalled by the lack of understanding for principles of fundamental justice in some people's attitudes. A person whose character is questioned in a public forum needs to have an equivalent right to defend himself in an equally public forum.
Ec
Agreed as well. Of course, the banned user will have a *very short* leash even on the talk page about them. But they must be allowed to speak on their own behalf to correct a clear error on a page about them.
-Rich
Rich Holton wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
This is not about Brandt or the bloody-minded obsession that some have expressed about Brandt. This place is about building an encyclopedia, and that should take precedence over who happens to have made the edit.
I am often appalled by the lack of understanding for principles of fundamental justice in some people's attitudes. A person whose character is questioned in a public forum needs to have an equivalent right to defend himself in an equally public forum.
Agreed as well. Of course, the banned user will have a *very short* leash even on the talk page about them. But they must be allowed to speak on their own behalf to correct a clear error on a page about them.
I can live with the short leash. I did suggest a while back that there be a place in an article for a living subject to respond relatively freely. This got shot down because it restricted the rights of others to edit what he was saying. Some of the other complaints about it probably have easy fixes. Something of the sort would likely go a long way to addressing the frustrations that some subjects must feel when their rights to set the record straight about their own personal information A prohibition against their talking about anyone else in the protected section would keep the leash short.
Ec